What a joke. The majority of scientists used to believe that the planets orbited around the earth. They were wrong. The majority has been wrong in many many cases. The "majority" of the world hates Christians. The majority of "scientists" believe in evolution, even though they're not scientists at all. Wouldn't you think that science classes should teach THE TRUTH?

Umm...when scientists believed the Earth to be the center of the universe weren't they under pressure to support that because of the church?

Oh boy, I'll have to get a list. We went over this in 8th grade, about the three famous astrologists. Ptolemy, and two other guy, i can't remember who, and they had opposing beliefs. Why in the world would they be under pressure from the church? I've never heard about this before, please explain.

As for geocentrism- that was first proposed by Aristotle and then "formalized" by Ptolemy. It was the Aristoleans at the universities that had convinced the church that their "science" is confirmed by the Bible. That was the reason the church accepted that view and it is true that dogma is hard to change.

Oh boy, I'll have to get a list. We went over this in 8th grade, about the three famous astrologists. Ptolemy, and two other guy, i can't remember who, and they had opposing beliefs. Why in the world would they be under pressure from the church? I've never heard about this before, please explain.

Galileo's support for the heliocentric theory got him into trouble with the Roman Catholic Church. In 1633 the Inquisition convicted him of heresy and forced him to recant (publicly withdraw) his support of Copernicus. They sentenced him to life imprisonment, but because of his advanced age allowed him serve his term under house arrest at his villa outside of Florence, Italy.

By the way the proper term is astronomer not astrologer. Astrologers are the new age flim flammers. My astrophysics professor has a fit everytime someone refers to astronomy as astrology. No big deal - its a common mistake. Someone once asked me what physics had to do with hair and makeup (confusing cosmology with cosmetology).

Nothing can bring itself into being. In order to do so, it would have to exist prior to its own existing so that it could cause itself to exist, which is absurd. So the argument goes that God must have required a super-God resulting in an infinite regression of super-Gods creating one after the other, which also seems to be absurd.

God does not need a cause because He is existence itself. Every other being is a contingent being that has existence, but is not existence itself. As such, every other being requires a cause to impart existence on it. You do not exist by necessity. Before your existence, you were not. So, God does not come into being. It is God's nature to be. God cannot not be. So, there is nothing prior to God because there is nothing prior to being. Everything else in the universe requires a creator because nothing else is existence itself. If it was, it could not not be.

Now, if God is existence itself and has a super-god create him resulting in an infinite regression of super-gods creating each other, there is nothing to distinguish one from the other because there is no difference between them. If A is being itself and B is being itself, there is nothing outside of each nature to distinguish them, so there is only one.

The existence of God has nothing to do with time. And so creation does not take place in time. Time is a measure of a physically existing thing that is moving through a proximate area.

Yeah I just noticed I'd written that as I read back through the posts. My bad!

Don't feel too bad. You were right. Ptolemy did indeed write a treatise on the ancient priciples of astrology, the Tetrabiblos. Back in those days, the distinction between astrology and astronomy was not quite as clear as it is today. Which is not surprising. What IS surprising is that there are so many today who still cling to such primitive superstitions.

One more time- it was the Aristoleans at the universities who pressured the Church into the anti-Galileo position. The Church took the geocentric view-point because that is what the science/ scientists of the time portrayed as the correct view. Thus they could manipulate the clergy into thinking the Bible supported that view.That is why Einstein's quote means so much:"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." The two should never be separated.

Calipithecus:What IS surprising is that there are so many today who still cling to such primitive superstitions.

People tend to stick with what works for them. There was a report about the institutions that use astrology- stock market, executive branches, military leaders, etc.

What IS very surprising is that there are people who cling to the notion that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to asexually reproduce- all via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes! Amazing indeed...

What IS very surprising is that there are people who cling to the notion that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to asexually reproduce- all via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes! Amazing indeed...

To play devil's advocate for a moment, look at your argument from the other point of view:

as opposed to a group of people who cling to the notion that all life was created by (and since I'm playing devil's advocate, I'll use this term) a higher entity who just pointed and life was created?

The relative amazement of one verses the other is based on the capability that should be assigned of one to perform what is ascribed to it.

Its no problem for and omnipotent, omnicient God to create life. OTH, it is impossible for nature to create itself, and for life to develope from purely naturalistic process.

So from a rational point of view, belief in naturalism in far more amazing than belief in God.

Worst of all, of course, is the ghastly abomination which is the illegitimate child of these two approaches. Ancient peoples were satisfied with having all of their explanations come in supernatural flavors. Naturalists are satisfied with keeping all of their explanations spirit-free (and are willing to do without explanations where necessary to maintain this consistency). But lots of folks nowadays want the best of both worlds. When they want to travel to distant places in a hurry, or communicate with people there, (or kill people there), when they want to catch a criminal or cure a sick kid or get entertained in a novel new way, they are happy to rely on modern science to provide the necessary concepts and equipment. If the scientists insist that in order to do this they have to make certain fundamental assumptions (such as that the universe we live in is consistent) these folks don't care; whatever it takes to get things working. But they also want to reserve the right to invoke spirits to wave away anything science comes up with that makes them uncomfortable, or fill in gaps with fairy dust. Seems downright wishy-washy to me.

Naturalists may try to keep their explanations "spirit-free" whatever that means, but they cannoy avoid the supernatural. To do so is to live a lie.

Ya see it is impossible for nature to have arisen via natural processes as natural processes only exist in nature.

I also get the distinct impression that Cal doesn't understand the ID or the Creation position. His response seems so ridiculous I have to wonder if he even knows what he is talking about.

I apologize if someone takes umbrage to this but I take umbrage to Cal's post. It displays an ignorance of the Creation position that is almost absurd.

Creationists throughout history have advanced science. Many a great scientist have come to the design inference. Witness Max Planck's Nobel Prize acceptance speech:

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."

You want to know why "it seems wishy-washy" to Cal? Because he doesn't have a clue...

Nothing can bring itself into being.Ã‚Â In order to do so, it would have to exist prior to its own existing so that it could cause itself to exist, which is absurd.Ã‚Â So the argument goes that God must have required a super-God resulting in an infinite regression of super-Gods creating one after the other, which also seems to be absurd.

God does not need a cause because He is existence itself.Ã‚Â Every other being is a contingent being that has existence, but is not existence itself.Ã‚Â As such, every other being requires a cause to impart existence on it.Ã‚Â You do not exist by necessity.Ã‚Â Before your existence, you were not.Ã‚Â So, God does not come into being.Ã‚Â It is God's nature to be.Ã‚Â God cannot not be.Ã‚Â So, there is nothing prior to God because there is nothing prior to being.Ã‚Â Everything else in the universe requires a creator because nothing else is existence itself.Ã‚Â If it was, it could not not be.Ã‚Â

Now, if God is existence itself and has a super-god create him resulting in an infinite regression of super-gods creating each other, there is nothing to distinguish one from the other because there is no difference between them.Ã‚Â If A is being itself and B is being itself, there is nothing outside of each nature to distinguish them, so there is only one.

The existence of God has nothing to do with time.Ã‚Â And so creation does not take place in time.Ã‚Â Time is a measure of a physically existing thing that is moving through a proximate area.

But, this is only with perception of time. We cannot perceive what eternity is like, or the laws that govern it. So, anything that exists in eternity, may have always been. Do you actually think the laws that govern our time dimension, will also govern the eternity dimension? For if we do not die, then right there, there is a law that is very different from what we know. Which would make one wonder how many other laws are like that in eternity. Laws that are way different from what we can comprehend.

Whether it be ID, Evolution, or philosophy, who/what/when created the universe and who created the creator is a question of significance Ã¢â‚¬â€œ or is it ?

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m all up for asking questions and exploring avenues to gain knowledge in hope to find the truth, but I think there are times where mankind just has to draw the line. Our answers to the OP are nothing but pure speculation. WeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll never be able to prove or demonstrate, scientifically or philosophically, what existed prior to plank time. Apologies, but I feel the question results in nothing but circular guess work and wastes too much time since any answer makes absolutely no difference to what we can observe and detect around us.

Tell me who is the creator of God, if they say everything that is created is created by a God...

This is a typical question asked by many non-believers, when you read about God in the bible, you read, that God is a spirit, and that he is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end.

He is outside of time, and is not bound by time, he actually created time itself.He is omni-present, which means he is everywhere at once, not bound by time/space.

The bible actually tells that no one created God, and that he just always existed.Which makes sense, because time was not created until, the sin of Adam.When the fall of man account happened, death and suffering were introduced to the creation.

Tell me who is the creator of God, if they say everything that is created is created by a God...

God is infinite, so He can't be created. If God had a creator, this creator would have to be more than infinite, which is logically impossible.

Now, the reason why I believe that an infinite God exists is because it is necessary logically. The world had to have had a beginning, as the Second Law of Thermodynamics says, and that fact demands that it have a Creator. If this Creator were less than infinite, He would have to have been created Himself, and so it would go on and on infinitely. But such an infinite regress is impossible with finite beings, so to avoid irrationality we must assume that there was an infinite Creator.